turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Archbishop of Canterbury
I think we should consider deleting this article. The only Archbishop we have right now of relevance is Robert Parsons, and the article reflects that. That information is also covered pretty well in the article on Parson. :It's also probably inaccurate. Sixtus and Philip were in agreement that William Allen would be the best choice for Archbishop of Canterbury after the conquest of England. He died in 1594. I'm going to assume HT was aware of this and decided Parsons would be Allen's likeliest successor. He could be right: Parsons was a close partner of Allen in any number of ventures, so anything that would make Allen attractive could transfer to Parsons easily enough upon the older man's death. Outside of mission countries, it's unusual for a Jesuit to be made a cardinal or a metropolitan, but not unheard of; the current Archbishop of Buenos Aires belongs to the order. Turtle Fan 19:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC) If we can list other AoCs besides Parsons that might help give this article some purpose, but the only other one I can think of is Thomas Cranmer, and he's really only vaguely relevant. TR 19:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :We can't, and with HT's diminished output across the board, and seemingly lagging interest in pre-20th century PODs especially, I just don't see that changing. We can delete this. Turtle Fan 19:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC) I've removed all the links, so we can delete without turning anything red. However, before we pull the trigger, let me point out that on the Henry II of England page there's a red link to Thomas Beckett. HT has used Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" line on several occasions over the years, which may justify the creation of a Beckett article. That would give us one more Archbishop, though even then it would be pretty incidental, no less so than in Cranmer's case. Turtle Fan 19:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :If we create an article for Beckett, then we can justify a category, barely. But it wouldn't do much for this article. TR 19:53, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::I wouldn't create the category: Two only-OTLs and one only-ATL, with growth potential approaching zero? It would become more of an annoyance than anything else. ::Meanwhile, we can eliminate this article. Turtle Fan 20:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Restoration? Thanks to the addition of Cosmo Lang joining Beckett and Cranmer, we now have three OTL Archbishops. Parsons is an ATL one and technically Lang is too. Any interest in resuscitating the category? Turtle Fan 19:59, July 22, 2011 (UTC) :I think I vote for restoration. Reviewing Lang's life, one can make a cogent argument for his either supporting Wilson or defying him. If the latter, well, we could have another DUI accident and a new AoC. If the former, well, if the Cartland-Walsh cabal are more successful than the Forrest-Potter one, then we could wind up with a new AoC. :Either way, the office has the potential to be nearly as important as it was in RB. TR 21:54, July 23, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah. Stranger things have happened. The category will rise again! ::In practice, after all, the Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less equivalent to the Pope, which office has its own article. Legallistically it's more like Prime Minister of the UK to President of the United States: Technically under the monarchy, but in practice does the real work and has the real authority. The Pope has very little in the way of counterbalances to his authority, like the Prime Minister who doesn't have a lot of checks and balances as long as he maintains the support of his MPs. The Archbishop has lots of other church organs that can potentially trip him up, similar to the Senate and House and Federal Bench and state governments to the POTUS. Turtle Fan 01:37, July 24, 2011 (UTC)